Good Job Bob
Member
Wow this console is a mess.
I'm guessing once the PS4 and next Xbox come out, the Wii U'll likely be seeing 30fps ports of Call of Duty just like the Wii did.
Yes that is my lineup to prove they care,rockstar doesn't want to port GTA5 i guess due to the wiiu having a different architecture.
so compared to xbox360, ps3 how is the wii u?
Look in the OP for a memory bandwidth comparison. (That's the only thing we have hard data on to compare)so compared to xbox360, ps3 how is the wii u?
gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
A next gen system with a memory pool slower then 7 year old hardware. How is that possible Nintendo.
You're wrong, but even if it was true, it's likely because they care more about the games anyway.gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
I'm guessing once the PS4 and next Xbox come out, the Wii U'll likely be seeing 30fps ports of Call of Duty just like the Wii did.
Instead of being lazy, why not refute it with facts. Oh, and please don't use Durante's post and rearrange some words.
gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
Nintendo gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
so compared to xbox360, ps3 how is the wii u?
If the graphics engine doesn't change...
gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
Still they are third party games and are being published by nintendo because they want third party games on their platform to sell also having games like AC3 and BO2 support my point.Well, to respond to your list, they're all cheap, relatively insignificant games. Yes, even Bayonetta. They're also all being published by Nintendo.
Comparison:
360: 22.4 GB/s + eDRAM for framebuffer
PS3: 25.6 GB/s main memory BW + 22.4 GB/s graphics memory BW, no eDRAM
GTX 680: 192.2 GB/s
Next-gen engines will easily be scalable enough. They'll probably scale to cell phones. The issue is, will next-gen AAA console games be scalable enough without major cuts?
Why would Treyarch have bothered with DX11 if they were going to change engines?
Probably not, given how some seem to act about PC hardware relative to consoles.fixed that
gamers must be the only high end tech enthusiasts who buy new devices with zero knowledge of their technical specifications.
So the issues plaguing Wii U ports in the ME3/NG3 port technical issues thread may not be totally blamed on the developers?
Probably not, given how some seem to act about PC hardware relative to consoles.
I honestly don't know what the answer is, but I just wanted to point out that post doesn't work when you don't post any fact to back up your own claim.
That post works when you post some analysis backed by facts and then someone just says "no." Then you can call them out on it. Not when both of you post essentially nothing.
680 is so beastly. It's a great card.
I think problems like that are usually, though not always, two ended. I kind of expect that given enough time and hardware familiarity they could mask the problems easier, but as is they'll stand out more.So the issues plaguing Wii U ports in the ME3/NG3 port technical issues thread may not be totally blamed on the developers?
They ARE some of the most secretive... But no, Apple can be worse, and it really IS worse because unlike Nintendo consoles there can be very real differences between models. Just look at iPhone 4 versus iPod Touch 4g, I don't think they mentioned the latter having a TN display or having half the ram, it took teardowns (well, just inspecting the display for the former) to really know how different it was.what i meant was that Nintendo is the only electronics/computer type manufacturer that doesn't tell people what they are buying. Or at least the only one I know of. When I looked at phones, all the info was available. Same with tablets, tvs...ymmv, imho, etc
Yeah, PCPer is well known for realtime-editing their teardown videos to change the part numbers on memory chips. Wait what?Terrell said:I'll wait until someone who I've heard of before does a teardown and can accurately identify the components.
How does that reply to what Durante said? He's speaking about the technical feasibility of ports and you respond with showing EA is seemingly unwilling to support the platform regardless of the system specs.I dunno Durante. According to the Battlefield 4 rumor... EA is ignoring Wii U all together while providing DX9 quality ports for PS3/360.
So you're saying PCPer were CGing the memory chip serials in real time to make them look worse?I'll wait until someone who I've heard of before does a teardown and can accurately identify the components. Just looking at the guts doesn't really help with any understanding, especially when lacking GPU/CPU details that can only be found out through proper testing of an open unit.
Everything.Is this the RAM for the OS, or the RAM for the games?
fixed that
Fair enough. Here's my simplistic reasoning. The RAM is too slow, and while we don't have all the details about the GPU, it's becoming increasingly difficult to consider this console definitively more powerful than either the 360 or PS3. Furthermore, I'm not left feeling very confident about future multiplatform titles because of the memory. Perhaps the glitches and performance issues we're seeing in ME3 and Arkham City are indicative of things to come?
I would personally rather have a smaller amount of faster memory than a larger pool of slower memory. Just my two cents on the matter. I'm certainly not a developer, but I'm not sure how this machine's memory can be looked at in a positive light.
Total RAM for both.Is this the RAM for the OS, or the RAM for the games?
Not entirely true though, other than the specs Nintendo really seemed to cater to third parties MUCH more than usual. That's why this news caught me off guard.
Is this the RAM for the OS, or the RAM for the games?
So you're saying that if there were no Durango/Orbis leaks no MS or SONY enthusiasts would buy their consoles until they knew all the specs? Stop being so asinine.
Is this the RAM for the OS, or the RAM for the games?
How does that reply to what Durante said? He's speaking about the technical feasibility of ports and you respond with showing EA is seemingly unwilling to support the platform regardless of the system specs.
Fair enough. Here's my simplistic reasoning. The RAM is too slow, and while we don't have all the details about the GPU, it's becoming increasingly difficult to consider this console definitively more powerful than either the 360 or PS3. Furthermore, I'm not left feeling very confident about future multiplatform titles because of the memory. Perhaps the glitches and performance issues we're seeing in ME3 and Arkham City are indicative of things to come?
I would personally rather have a smaller amount of faster memory than a larger pool of slower memory. Just my two cents on the matter. I'm certainly not a developer, but I'm not sure how this machine's memory can be looked at in a positive light.
Man, I'll buy it when Zelda comes out and that's it.
Next-gen engines will easily be scalable enough. They'll probably scale to cell phones. The issue is, will next-gen AAA console games be scalable enough without major cuts?